View Single Post
Old 08-01-2019, 11:05 AM   #67
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
Consider Figures A, B, C and D who have adjDX in that order, Figure A has the highest, therefore their turn order is A, B, C, D. Figure B moves up to Figure D (who did not move). Look at these two situations and tell me how they are different:

(1) Figure B declares an attack, Figure D then declares they will Defend and thus Figure B needs 4/DX, Figure D has been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure C.

(2) Figure D has a polearm, they ask Figure B if they are attacking (charge attack) and if so, Figure D gets a polearm defensive bonus, or Figure B could declare they are not attacking and Figure D gets no bonus, but either way Figure B has effectively been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure A.

In both situations, an action by one figure has forced another to declare an action out of sequence.
The difference is that in (2), B can say they are not attacking yet, as they are out of range during the polearm phase and so cannot attack yet and also cannot be compelled to promise what they will or will not do as their action when that comes up.

In situation (1), D actually needs to defend when B's attack happens.

Now, in situation (2), B could also choose to Defend when D does a polearm defense against B, and would need to declare that then because the defense would actually happen then. However D would still get their polearm defensive bonuses because those are available because B went from non-adjacent to adjacent that turn.

There is no option to "promise not to attack during my action, to avoid defensive polearm bonuses". If there were, it would/should be mentioned in the options list and elsewhere, and the pole weapon and pike rules, because it would be such a great way to avoid the polearm effects.

Also, again, the definition of what a charge attack is may mention an attack because a charge attack is an attack. Defending against a charge isn't defined as the target needing to attack - the attack involved in defending against a charge is the defender's attack.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote